I have loved to read for as long as I can remember. Before kindergarten, I had tackled the Children's Classics edition of "Anne of Green Gables," and I proceeded to plow through the books in my elementary school's library with unprecedented fervor. I could not read enough. I tore through multiple series—the first being "Harry Potter," of course—and was struck with awe when the story that I loved so dearly was turned into a movie. I was captivated by the magic wands, loving friendships and most importantly, quidditch matches transitioning from page to screen.

Then a tragic thing happened: I grew up and realized that the books that I loved so dearly were being butchered at the hands of Hollywood. Among the fatalities were "The City of Ember" and "The Lightning Thief." These first installments of their respective series were so unique from anything that I had ever read, and I was so excited to see the movie adaptations. However, there were so many differences between the books and the movies that I couldn't even enjoy either of the movies. I counted all of the differences and was quite vocal about how awful it was that the original stories had been changed into something horrible.

The most frustrating thing is that the changes made in these adaptations didn't actually help captivate the viewers who hadn't read the books. "The City of Ember" received a Tomatometer score of 53 percent paired with an audience score of 46 percent, and "The Lightning Thief" received a Tomatometer score of 49 percent and an audience score of 53 percent. Obviously, the changes that they made didn't make the story any better, so I'm left wondering why these changes occurred at all. If a book is so successful, what would merit changing the story instead of just bringing that same story to life in another form?

The "Divergent" series is one of the latest victims of this same story changing. "Divergent," the first installment of the series, stuck to the book's storyline fairly well and did well in theaters, which is not surprising considering how successful the book was. I left the movie happy with the way that it was executed. Albeit there were changes, but it maintained the main aspects of the original story that made it so good. Many of the people who criticized the movie were those who thought that it was just another dystopian fiction akin to "The Hunger Games," which, from those who haven't read the series, is a fair claim. The first book is indeed very similar to the idea of other popular young adult novels set in dystopian societies, but the series strays from the typical plot of these other books by focusing on hard-hitting critiques of society and an examination of human nature. Yes, Tris had a love interest in Four, but that is by no means the central aspect of the plot. Her actions do not revolve around what he believes to be right or what he wants to happen. Tris is completely independent of her love interest, which is one of the reasons why I herald her as a strong character that we see far too little of in other heroines of popular stories.

* SPOILER ALERT FOR "INSURGENT" *

Then "Insurgent" came out. My aunt, who has also read the series, saw the movie before I did and told me that she couldn't believe how different it was from the book. She was especially dismayed about end of the movie, where everyone was portrayed as incredibly happy with the realization that their city was created to help "cure" humanity and essentially start over. This happiness was far from the rampant emotions that are present at the end of the book. Like with the ending, the movie kept a few of the same basic plot lines and end results of certain decisions, but the substance of getting from one plot point to the next is extremely different.

Among the ridiculous amount of key differences between the book and the movie is Tris' ability to fight, which affects her decision-making and emotions throughout the entirety of "Insurgent." In the combat that takes place at the end of "Divergent," Tris is shot in the shoulder, and her athletic performance is greatly affected. But the most damage to Tris came from when she was forced to kill her friend, Will, when he was trying to attack her while under the effects of the simulation serum. Tris is actually unable to shoot a gun in "Insurgent" (the book) after Will's death because she essentially has PTSD after killing him. This also affects the level of emotion that she puts into her decision-making and how much her relationship with Christina changes, which both hugely contribute to the plot. However, you see little to no evidence of these things in the movie.

Additionally, the movie doesn't approach Tris' interactions with the factions' different serums in a manner that demonstrates that she has been able to endure the effects of all of the serums, which is something that no one else can do and hugely comes into play in "Allegiant." All of these changes contributed to a Tomatometer rating of 29 percent and an audience score of 60 percent, which is significantly lower than the scores that "Divergent" received. My hope was that the poor ratings for the second film would lead the producers to realize that sticking to the plot of the book was a likely cause for the success of "Divergent," and that they would stick to the book when making "Allegiant" in an attempt to be more successful.

* END SPOILER ALERT FOR "INSURGENT" *

* SPOILER ALERT FOR "ALLEGIANT" *

Then I saw the trailer for "Allegiant" at one of the movies that I was watching with my family, and I went berserk. They had to keep shushing me because they didn't want me to get us kicked out of the movie theater. It was that bad. Honestly, the movie shouldn't even be called "Allegiant" because it was nothing like the book at all. With being able to tell that from the trailer alone, I can't imagine how much the movie butchered the story. In the book, there are no flying spaceships at all; Tris and Four aren't super in love because Four is furious to find out that Tris is "genetically pure" and that he is "genetically damaged," which causes him to make really stupid decisions and begin to resent Tris; there aren't children inside of the complex because it is an intelligence complex full of scientists. The plot is entirely different, and there should not be a fourth movie because the story could be resolved in one movie and there is no fourth book. Evidently, these changes didn't help the movies achieve success because out of the three movies thus far, it received the lowest rating with a Tomatometer rating of 12 percent and an audience score of 46 percent, which is horrendous.

* END SPOILER ALERT FOR "ALLEGIANT" *

The people that are behind these movies have ruined essentially every single thing that made the series so unique and wonderful. They hyped up the whole "love interest" nonsense when there does not need to be some big relationship subplot to draw women to the movie. It's sexist, overdone and everyone is tired of it. The book was hugely successful without doing it, so there is no reason to put it in the movie. Adding things like that is what makes viewers tired of teen-centered dystopian stories. And due to movies changing the plot so much, there are several variations of the same story, whereas the books are so incredibly different from each other.

What infuriates me the most about these changes is that they ruin the story for people who aren't going to read the books. They also make the fans of the books angry because the books that they have come to love end up being severely depreciated due to the Hollywood's lack of adherence to the stories. The "Divergent" series is one of the best series that I've read, and it far surpasses any other dystopian young adult series because it has such wonderful character development and doesn't shy away from examining taboo ideas such as governmental corruption, human nature, the harm of militarizing scientific discoveries, the idea of what a healthy relationship is, ethics in general, forgiveness and sacrifice. I wanted those messages to be able to reach a wider audience because they are good lessons for people of every age, and the story of Tris Prior is honestly beautiful and heartbreaking. She is everything that I could ask for to represent a strong female character, and "Allegiant" ties up her story in the same way that made the "Divergent" series incredibly successful. It greatly upsets me to know that the story won't be well known due to the butchering of it in the movies.

I am tired of feeding a system that exploits the intellectual property of authors for monetary gain in order to mass produce nearly identical movies that teach people—especially teenage girls—all of the wrong lessons. I believe that it is morally wrong to change the aspects of a story so much and use the name of such a good book because when a story is changed that much, it is no longer that story. It taints the name of those books forever. I just want to be able to enjoy my favorite stories transformed into another medium, but I just get really angry. Now my family doesn't want to see those movies with me. Please, by all means, go read these wonderful books. Stop giving in to the movie industry in hopes that one time they will surprise you because they won't.